The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Amazingly a few weeks ago i eould have said that Tacky had sunk less than the other turds in the bowl and was one of the more "rational Birfoons" - but if he's adopted playlaw I guess we can flush that statement

<quoted text>Of course they are not going to vote for Republicans after Obama expressly targeted them with lies to get their vote.And you should hope you are not one of Obama's gay useful idiots. There is a long line of dead gays in his past associations. We wouldn't want you to follow in their footsteps.BTW your Bible interpretations are hilarious. No wonder the atheist population is expanding.

Your comment does not reflect that of an educated person. Rather, the non-religious, not the atheist population, is expanding. As one becomes educated and therefore enlightened, one wants proof of what is advanced by paternalistic old men who would label themselves prophets, popes and archbishops, not to mention immans and rabbis and so forth. As one advances in age, wisdom is tacked on if one remains open to discoveries. The result is inevitable, one believes less and less in organised religion. Refrain from labelling anyone who does not agree with you an atheist. An atheist, I believe, has much more respect for a religious person than vice-versa. Certainly, more tolerance. Atheists, as far as is known, never burnt anyone at the stake for their beliefs.

<quoted text>Wrong peanut breath. Everything from the Lame Stream Media has to be run by Obama's slaves in the White House and any negative comments are done under the threat of dismissal or something of greater importance.

<quoted text>God is not mocked in that His law cannot be ignored without punishment (Rom. 2:6-9). Adam and Eve tried it to their sorrow (Gen. 2:15-17; 3:6, 24). Ananias and Sapphira tried it to their death (Acts 5:1-11).God is not mocked in that He cannot be deceived (Heb. 4:12-13). Achan concealed his sin from others but God was not mocked (Josh. 7). Gehazi, Elisha's servant, tried to gain a personal profit by lying but God was not mocked (2 Kings 5:20-27). Jonah tried to run from Him but God would not be mocked.The citizen is obliged in conscience NOT to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are 'contrary' to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God & serving the 'political community'. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar''s, and to God the things that are God's (Mt.22:21)."We MUST obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)When we citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps it's competence, we should still not refuse to give or do what is demanded of us by the common good.....but It is legitimate for us to defend our own rights & those of our fellow citizens against the 'abuse of authority' within the limits of the natural law & the Law of the Gospel.

<quoted text>You didn't respond to my previous post on this petition.1) There is no mechanism in place in law for a national recount as voting is administered and controlled by the individual states (remember "states rights"?)2) There is no evidence of any need to recount - most of the voter suppression was by the Republicans, in fact.You lost. The America people have spoken. They didn't want Romney and his lies and said so in no uncertain terms.According to Karl Rove, 332 electoral votes qualifies as a landslide. America WANTS women to be able to make their own choices, and wants blacks, gays and Latinos to be free of the Republican racism.You lost. Big time. It is over. Done. Give it and form your own political party and try again in 2014 or 2016.

( CNSNews.com ) Its Friday morning, and so far today, the Obama administration has posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its reguations.gov website.

In the past 90 days, it has posted 6,125 regulations and notices  an average of 68 a day.

The website allows visitors to find and comment on proposed regulations and related documents published by the U.S. federal government. "Help improve Federal regulations by submitting your comments," the website says.

The thousands of entries run the gamut from meeting notifications to fee schedules to actual rules and proposed rule changes.

In recent days, for example, the EPA posted a proposed rule involving volatile organic compound emissions from architectural coatings:We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the proposed rule states.We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

Another proposed rule will provide guidance for FDA staff on "enforcement criteria for canned ackee, frozen ackee, and other ackee products that contain hypoglycin A." (Ackee is the national fruit of Jamaica; unripened or inedible portions can be toxic.)

Some of the proposed regulations revise regulations already on the books.

The website also links to a video of a speech President Barack Obama gave at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 7, 2011, in which the president promised to remove outdated and unnecessary regulations.

I've ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them, the president said.

A number of groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, expect a rush of new regulations now that President Obama has won a second term:

CEI expects the EPA to move ahead on delayed rules on everything from greenhouse gas emissions to ozone standards.Rules from the health care bill and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill will also likely make themselves known in the weeks to come," the group said on its website."

Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence "

Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.

...

It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that ********Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.*****

...

Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.

...Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".

In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'

This is a lie. The Framers of the Constitution intended no such mandate, and never observed any such mandate. Just as all individuals have a duty to worship God, so do nations. America's Founding Fathers honored that duty. The Constitution did not repeal that duty.(The duty to "remain secular," in this particular case, means the duty of the government not to acknowledge Christmas.)

( CNSNews.com )Â ItÂs Friday morning, and so far today, the Obama administration has posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its reguations.gov website.

In the past 90 days, it has posted 6,125 regulations and notices Â an average of 68 a day.

The website allows visitors to find and comment on proposed regulations and related documents published by the U.S. federal government. "Help improve Federal regulations by submitting your comments," the website says.

The thousands of entries run the gamut from meeting notifications to fee schedules to actual rules and proposed rule changes.

In recent days, for example, the EPA posted a proposed rule involving volatile organic compound emissions from architectural coatings:ÂWe are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act),Â the proposed rule states.ÂWe are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.Â

Another proposed rule will provide guidance for FDA staff on "enforcement criteria for canned ackee, frozen ackee, and other ackee products that contain hypoglycin A." (Ackee is the national fruit of Jamaica; unripened or inedible portions can be toxic.)

Some of the proposed regulations revise regulations already on the books.

The website also links to a video of a speech President Barack Obama gave at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 7, 2011, in which the president promised to remove Âoutdated and unnecessary regulations.Â

ÂI've ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them,Â the president said.

A number of groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, expect a rush of new regulations now that President Obama has won a second term:

CEI expects the EPA to move ahead on delayed rules on everything from greenhouse gas emissions to ozone standards.ÂRules from the health care bill and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill will also likely make themselves known in the weeks to come," the group said on its website."

<quoted text>Yeah, that occurred during Bill Clinton's terms.Remember NAFTA and the CFTT?

NAFTA belongs to conservatives, namely president Reagan and P.M. Mulroney. Signed by Clinton, yes and Chrétien but entirely initiated and approved by Reagan and Mulroney. All Clinton did was sign the treaty. We've discussed this before, Rogue. You were wrong then, and wrong now.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.